Pcs Just Piss Me Off

[miladinoski 1]

If you really want a comparison of which one looks better DirectX or OpenGL, then take a look at this, taken and cropped because of size from here:

 

The only reason why developers choose DirectX is because either Microsoft pays them to their software only work on their rigged OS or because they are too darn stupid and/or ignorant fools to realise that other PC platforms except Microsoft Windows infact do exist and people use them.

 

I'll mention an example for an terrific game made in 2000 called MDK2 and whose minimum requirements were these:

200 MHz CPU

16 MB RAM

250 MB available hard disk space

OpenGL-capable graphics card with 4 MB RAM

DirectX-compatible sound card (WIN)

and I mention it because of the fact that its an OpenGL game it plays perfectly in GNU/Linux using Wine and see how great it looks (of course for a game made in 2000) — here on IGN.

 

If games were made in OpenGL, the OS wars (by me) would have been gone by now.

[DeM0nFiRe 0]

Wait, what? The version of OpenGL you have depends on your drivers, not on Windows. I have OpenGL 2.0 right now, on my Radeon 7200 I had 1.3 and on my 9250 I had 1.2. And I didn't mean that the gamers care, I meant that developers make their games for windows because Direct X is on windows, therefore gamers have to use windows because the games are on windows.Also, Quake 3 is a horrible benchmark. Quake 3 could run well on a toaster. Besides that, Quake 3 and games based off of the Quake 3 engine (Like Return to Castle Wolfenstein) were programmed to run equally well on DirectX or OpenGL. In any case, take a look at the Irrlicht Engine. I just ran their Shaders demo, and in OpenGL 1.5 I got about 620FPS. On DirectX 9 I got 1200FPS, and on Dirxt X 8 I got 1100 FPS (Although, the number for DirectX 8 is skewed because DirectX8 did not support the high level shaders that DX9 and OGL 1.5 did, however OGL 1.5 without those shaders was still only 650FPS max)Also, miladinoski, texture quality and normal mapping such as in your demo were never in the debate. DirectX 9 is pretty comparable to OpenGL 1.5+ in terms of image quality. DirectX10, however, can also do things that neither DirextX9 or OGL can do at all, at this point, such as volumetric smoke and light.Also, DirectX is not inherently faster, which is what I've said 3 times now. Inherently would mean taking out external factors. If you take out external factors, then DirectX and OpenGL are nearly identical except in the way you code with them and in the few things that DX10 can do that DX9 and OGL cannot do. The fact that DirectX is better implemented by the video card manufacturers (For whatever reason, I don't care what the reason is) makes it so it is not the fault of the software developer that the games are for windows.

[rayzoredge 2]

OP: I'm sure that you did your homework on your laptop purchase, and I'm sure you've done just about everything to keep the laptop alive and working. When you mentioned Toshiba, I immediately threw the bias against the company, because there's a reason why our company's fleet of Tosh*tbas don't work as well as they should. (A history of hard drive failures, component replacements, and whatnot indicate to me that I can't depend on a Toshiba laptop. What I don't understand is why our IT guy insists on sticking with the brand...)I'm guessing that the error was attributed to a BSOD, which my first thought, and what you figured out already, was bad RAM. Then again, you didn't even replace the RAM... maybe it was just poorly seated?Also, Googling DCOM threw me towards Wiki, which seems like a networking component of Windows. Why it's system-dependent, I don't have a clue (since it uses that protocol to communicated with components on a network, it seems), but I don't ever remember even wanting to disable DCOM. Did you check services.msc to make sure that for some reason it's not disabled? Check the DCOM Server Process Launcher, COM+ System Application, and the COM+ Event System services. (I don't know what other dependencies there are... those seemed like the likely ones.) I'm not sure how you are, but back in the day I was a tweaker... mostly to a fault. Nowadays I leave most things alone and only turn off things that I'm dead sure I don't need (like Automatic Updates and the Error Reporting services).As far as the OpenGL vs. DirectX discussion goes, isn't it rather misleading to show images of different games to see the visual impact both technologies are able to render? Isn't it dependent on how developers utilize the technology and make up the code? For all we know, we could be seeing a graphically-hindered game (thanks to laziness and/or poor coding) for the DirectX component compared to the best that OpenGL can offer.With the samples for OpenGL and what we've all witnessed with the graphical engine behind Crysis, I can safely say that both technologies are rather capable to their extents to be pretty darn aesthetically-pleasing. (As far as efficiency goes, I don't know how or if I want to touch that... considering that there's bias everywhere and fanboys will love to back up their respective APIs.) Then again, that's just me.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

I really wouldn't even care if OpenGL was less graphically pleasing than DirectX is. I would love to be able to move off Windows platform for good.I would much rather have a game that doesn't look as good but runs on a stable platform than a game that looks great and constantly crashes(not "constantly" as in non-stop, but as far as I have heard Linux rarely, if ever, crashes).As for the pictures shown up above...You really can not compare the looks of them unless all 3 were of the same area of a game or something. Even when advertisers are showing off their blue ray, they take the same 10 second scene and play it in normal, HD, and then BR. It's just too hard to compare when they are not all side-by-side.

[truefusion 3]

Wait, what? The version of OpenGL you have depends on your drivers, not on Windows. I have OpenGL 2.0 right now, on my Radeon 7200 I had 1.3 and on my 9250 I had 1.2. And I didn't mean that the gamers care, I meant that developers make their games for windows because Direct X is on windows, therefore gamers have to use windows because the games are on windows.

 

Also, Quake 3 is a horrible benchmark. Quake 3 could run well on a toaster. Besides that, Quake 3 and games based off of the Quake 3 engine (Like Return to Castle Wolfenstein) were programmed to run equally well on DirectX or OpenGL. In any case, take a look at the Irrlicht Engine. I just ran their Shaders demo, and in OpenGL 1.5 I got about 620FPS. On DirectX 9 I got 1200FPS, and on Dirxt X 8 I got 1100 FPS (Although, the number for DirectX 8 is skewed because DirectX8 did not support the high level shaders that DX9 and OGL 1.5 did, however OGL 1.5 without those shaders was still only 650FPS max)

 

Also, DirectX is not inherently faster, which is what I've said 3 times now. Inherently would mean taking out external factors. If you take out external factors, then DirectX and OpenGL are nearly identical except in the way you code with them and in the few things that DX10 can do that DX9 and OGL cannot do. The fact that DirectX is better implemented by the video card manufacturers (For whatever reason, I don't care what the reason is) makes it so it is not the fault of the software developer that the games are for windows.

Doesn't the ability for programs to make full use of the version of the OpenGL found on the card come from the system? Microsoft have been known to have an implementation of OpenGL on top of DirectX on their system.* This should (obviously) cause a decrease in performance. A better comparison for your Shaders' demo test would have been with either at least OpenGL 2.0 or running the OpenGL portion of it on another system (if at all possible), since you appear to be using Windows XP, as i don't believe Vista was designed to use DirectX 8 or 9, where Windows XP—knowing of how it handles OpenGL—would be an unfair comparison. Using OpenGL 2.0, from my understanding, would mean Windows isn't using DirectX for many OpenGL calls but OpenGL itself.

 

I don't believe it's the case that the reason why game developers develop for Windows is because of DirectX. The case is due to Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop market is why game developers develop for Windows. For if Apple had that kind of market share, these developers would be developing for OpenGL or whatever MacOS has.

 

You never said DirectX isn't inherently faster, you only implied it through non-sequitur arguments. In your previous statements you explicitly said that DirectX was faster than OpenGL—you repeated this a few times and it implies that DirectX is inherently faster. The thing about your statements is that it doesn't follow, mostly due to how it repeats itself. The only factor you allowed was bad implementation by the card manufacturers. This does a few things: [1] it debunks your previous statement that DirectX is faster than OpenGL since it is not a problem that is directly related with OpenGL (i.e. it is not OpenGL's fault); [2] it debunks your Shaders' demo test, as you're using unfair comparisons again; [3] it also shows (or adds to the reason) why "in practice" DirectX is better. However, that is not without "in practice" implying generality. Generality leaves out (a lot of) subjective factors, since it is implied that it is being showed constantly what the case is, therefore giving the appearance of DirectX being inherently faster.

 

My mere argument is that game developers do not need to develop for Windows or DirectX alone. I don't mind if they build for Windows and DirectX, i just don't see the need to limit themselves to them, especially if it causes unfair competition.

[Echo_of_thunder 1]

It would seem that it is the drivers that are causing the problem and so you need to check which drivers that are causing the problems and to help you out with that check out this guide on stops to take to figure out what is causing XP to produce those errors for you. Odds are it would seem that drivers were causing all your problems and odds are Windows 7 was helping along the way as well and so it is the matter of updating drivers and what not to make your computer run smoother, maybe the hard drive and the RAM need to be replace and that might solve some issues.
Also I wouldn't say its evil but outright wrong that your going to give you friend a defective computer and make him solve all the problems that you have yet to figure out.

I have to agree with S_M there on checking each driver. also I may have missed it but what brand is this PC. You never know you may have one of them there Monday Friday computers. you know the one's that they make when that have a bad hang over on a monday, and cant wait to get out and party on a friday? It very well could be just a defective one. But then again you said you started with Vista. could very well be there is some part of the old vista hiding and throughing things off. who know's for sure. But I wouldnt give it or sell it to a friend. because they may not be a friend for much longer after that.

[DeM0nFiRe 0]

Ok, I said in practice, DirectX is faster than OpenGL. The non-sequitor was on your part. How do you get "DirectX is inherently faster" from "In practice, DirectX is faster" The two statements are nearly as far apart as they can possible be. "Inherently" would mean that DirectX is faster because of some quality it has barring external variables, while "in practice" means that DirectX is faster than OpenGL because of things outside of either API. As I have said many times, at the fundamental level are very similar to one another. DirectX and OpenGL are both damn fine APIs, and I am not saying there is anything wrong with OpenGL. Clearly, the problem (If there is one) would be the fault of the video card manufacturers (As for the idea that MS pays them off, this may or may not be true, but that wouldn't mean that the video card mfgs would have to sell out.)Also, as for my benchmarks, The Irrlicht engine only supports up to OpenGL 1.5 and DirectX 9 (Which, unless I am mistaken is a fair matchup because as far as I am aware OpenGL 2.x would be the counterpart to DX10, which the engine doe snot support) HOWEVER, if it is true that OpenGL's performance is hindered by Windows XP (Which I don't know that it is) You do have a valid point. I'll run the benchmarks under Xubuntu when I can (Oh yes, I am not just a windows-lover, I use Linux as well. Linux is definitely better than Windows for some things-- just not games.) That way I am running DirectX under optimal conditions and OpenGL under optimal conditions (Under Linux where it can be assuredly unhindered)Also, although I do not have any numbers to show you, I can say that on an Nvidia GeForce 2MX I could not run TORCS with OpenGL under Linux(Xubuntu 7.04 at the time), however I could under Windows. (Same exact machine, by the way, it was a dual boot) I will also put out there that my experience with Xubuntu 7.04 was rather flaky, so perhaps I used a bad distro, however it does stand to reason that this shows that either a)Windows does not hinder OpenGL or b)Despite the fact that windows hinders OpenGL, it's still a better place to play games, even OpenGL games.Also, Rayzoredge: I am not trying to stand up for my API XD In actuality, I plan on using both APIs and should the game development market stray from windows I will happily follow it wherever it goes. However as it stands now Windows is just the way to go for Game Development (For whatever reason, maybe it's because MS is evil and is tryng to get some horizontal consolidation going on, but either way Windows is better for gaming right now)

Edited January 6, 2009 by DeM0nFiRe (see edit history)